>> cenk: so here's how this works. lovely tv show for you guys here. talk to a lot of interesting guests. we've got more news for you in an online show "the young turks."com later tonight. all of the news of the day. don't miss any of it. stay right here because "viewpoint" with john fuglesang is up next. >> john: breitbart.com said obama's inaugural speech was an attack on liberty as we know it. oh gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. the filibuster, the magical tool that proves democracy is when 45 senators get to control the other 55. and bill o'reilly said obama's desire for social justice was noble but it won't solve our fiscal problems because you know that requires an entire cable news propaganda network

who touted the fake war. today is the birthday of the late great sam cook and steve perry who sang "don't stop believin'" before journey stopped him. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening. i'm john fuglesang. thank you for joining us this evening for "viewpoint." on today's 40th anniversary of the historic roe vs. wade decision legalizing abortion rights the pro-choice community has a lot to be thankful for and quite a bit to fear on another. let's start with the thankful stuff first. sure the mandatory anti-rowe protest took place in cities like huntsville, alabama. even in huntsville, pro-choice protestors were out and waving their signs today. go alabama.

now perhaps they were marking what seems to be an historic shift in how the nation, as a whole, sees this issue. because according to the latest nbc news "wall street journal" poll, for the first time, a majority of american adults support some form of legal right to abortion. 31% say it should always be legal. 23% say mostly legal. and for a -- that's for a 54% majority. on the negative side, 35% think abortion should be illegal but with exceptions. only 9% say abortion should always be illegal without any exceptions lookin' at you paul ryan. no surprise then that when asked if they would like the supreme court to completely overturn roe v. wade, majorities in three polls say no way. less than a quarter want roe overturned in the nbc "wall street journal" poll. 70% say no. less than a third in a recent pew poll want roe removed. 63% say no. the most recent gallup show show

similar numbers with 18% saying they have no opinion on the issue. thanks for participating in democracy, guys. but the good news, ruth bader ginsburg can finally pick out the retirement villa. while the national numbers show abortion rights with solid support, conservative state governments are moving the other way. according to the guttmacher institute which follows the trends 19 states last year passed a total of 43 provisions aimed at restricts access to abortion including laws that impose mandatory unnecessary ultrasound procedures on women seeking abortions including the invasive transvaginal procedure. laws providing abortion providers make fetal heart beats audible prior to procedures. restrictive regulations affecting abortion providers. laws that ban abortion prior to fetal viability and attempts to ban abortion coverage in afor thible care act exchanges. for more on the present and future of roe v. wade i'm happy

to be joined by congresswoman karen bass, democrat of california. >> thanks for having me on. >> john: the latest polls show a majority of americans support abortion rights in all or most cases. to you does this represent a turning point in this debate or has it been this way for awhile? >> i think it has been this way for awhile. i think there is a whole generation of women who have grown up understanding that a woman has a right to choose. so why we continue to try to turn back the clock of time, it is beyond me. >> john: it is because of the strong views of many of the people who call themselves pro-life. what's interesting is that strong majorities reject a future supreme court totally overturning roe v. wade. does that mean abortion rights at least at a constitutional level are safe as long as democrats keep appointing supreme court justices for awhile. >> thank goodness the about was re-elected so we don't have to worry about the supreme court being distorted.

i do think that's the case. you know over the last couple of years, we've seen state after state introduce restrictions on a woman's right for access. so the law is in place but the states can deny access and then you have some states where there's only one clinic in the entire state that provides the service. >> john: exactly. so what do you say to your constituents who might be opposed to abortion rights who maintain that it's their right because of their beliefs be it religious or otherwise to do everything they can to chip away at these rights of women? >> well, you know, i really find it to be contradictory because the same people who are against choice also say that they are opposed to government interventions and they want government to be small. but yet they want to give government the authority to determine what a woman does with her body and to tell a doctor what a doctor does in an exam room. to me, if you were constent and you were against abortion, then why don't you provide ready

access to birth control? because the same people who don't want a woman to have a right to have access to abortion also do not want to provide birth control services and then ironically, the same people also don't want to provide support to poor women when the child is born. so i think it's a ball of confusion and contradiction and i just can't believe in the 21st century we're still arguing these same issues. >> john: i couldn't agree more. i felt this way for years we don't have an abortion problem in this country. we have an unwanted pregnancy problem. an abortion symptom. >> exactly. you know what it really comes down to, we're really own only limiting access for poor women because women who have money can find a way to resolve a problem pregnancy. but women who don't can't. so this is really just constent with the ideology that doesn't really believe that we should have a safety net in our country. >> john: you're exactly right. wealthy women always had access

to women's reproductive freedoms long before roe v. wade. your colleague paul ryan, is, of course, one of 25 republicans who have reintroduced a bill that would define life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. do you think that they even care if this bill can pass the house or is it just theatre? >> well, i do think that they know that it might pass the house but it won't go anywhere in the senate. you know, you would think that after the election in november and the way that the republicans lost the women's vote and all of the absurdity that came with redefining rape and attacking a woman's right to choose and trying to tell doctors what they should do in the exam room, you would think that they would stop this. but if they continue along this road, you know, who knows. i think they'll probably lose power in the next couple of years. >> john: i'm guessing you're referring to the candidacies of todd akin and richard mourdock for the senate and their unfortunate comments on rape. >> actually, i think that they were scapegoats because i was

here when i saw the republicans put on actual hearings that raised the whole issue of rape. i think the problem is that todd akin went out and told everybody what was going on. but you know, it shouldn't just be hung on his neck. this was a pretty general discussion and debate that was happening in congress about last year this time. >> john: we're almost out of time but in your statement on roe today, you said there's no better time to ensure reproductive rights are respect and protected. what if anything can congress do to reach that goal? >> congress needs to leave the issue alone and provide increased access to healthcare for women. you know, wanting to cut funding for planned parenthood, for example, when everybody knows that planned parenthood provides a number of other services, in addition to access to abortion. but if you really want to limit abortion then provide access to bit control. >> john: amen. you know what, i'll add on to that the republicans control the white house and the house and

senate under george bush. they could have defunded planned parenthood before breakfast. they never wanted to. karen bass, heroic democrat of california, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thanks for having me on. >> john: come back and see us again. >> ok. >> john: for more than the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, i'm proud to bring on terry o'neill, president of the national organization for women and staff right writer for salon, erin carmen. terri, you wrote today we're at a critical turning point where abortion rights are concerned because of actions by conservative legislators on the state level. so how do you turn back that tide, state by state? >> that's exactly what we have to do. we have to be in each state. this year, 2013, for example we're going to be in virginia and in new jersey. they're very important state legislative elections going on there and we're going to be -- motivating doing a voter registration project in both states to let voters know what's at stake for women in these

states. of course, governor mcdonnell passed -- supported the infamous mandatory ultrasound law in virginia. because of the huge outcry against the transvaginal part of it, he got that part removed. but he did sign the -- sort of the external ultrasound mandatory -- the only purpose of it is to humiliate a woman who seeks an abortion. by the way, mcdonnell is the same governor who waited until the friday between christmas and new year's to sign a law that is so restrictive of abortion clinics that actually it's intended to and may very well shut them down if the courts don't step in and stop that from happening. this is the kind of information that we need to have at the state. >> eliot:s. we're going to be working with our allies in the states. when it comes to the 2014 elections, we'll be expanding the voter education and mobilization project state by state to let legislators know

they can't continue to do this without paying a price. >> john: i wonder if they read today's poll results. in your column today you wrote that we don't live in a roe world, we live in a casey world. could you explain what you mean by that and how that really empowers conservative legislatures to pass these kind of laws? >> all of the restrictions that terry referred to, the door to them was opened in the 1992 decision planned parenthood versus casey which celebrated its own anniversary last year and while people were happy that that didn't overturn roe v. wade which was the fear at the time, what happened was they said you could basically pass any kind of restriction on abortion as long as it didn't outright ban it before viability. as a result, anything the court doesn't consider an undue burden can stand. that's basically out how federal counties which as you know, are stacked with many conservatives and obama has not made a ton of judicial appointments to them, these are the courts -- what is considered a burden. transvaginal ultrasound, totally

fine. forcing a woman to listen to a heart beat, fine. shutting down a clinic, fine. >> john: trying to torment a woman in the process of what is a difficult decision. terry, do you feel we're still dealing with the ripple effects of casey on a daily basis? >> absolutely. it was really an unfortunate decision. what's interesting to me is heartening to me about the latest polls is that the casey decision has as irin describes it is completely out of step with what the american people want. 70% of people want roe v. wade to remain the law of the land. it is unfortunate that it's not. but the reality is people really do want women to be left alone in making their decision as to whether to continue a pregnancy or not. and by the way one of the most -- polling that i've seen that jumped out at me is the vast majority of people who think that if abortion were to be a crime again that at least there should be an exception

where when a pregnancy threatens a woman's health, now lawmakers have not honored a woman's right to protect her own health and terminate a pregnancy. but some of the polls i've seen, it is over 80% of people say yes, there should be an exception for women's health. again, if we have this public conversation, people look at the lawmakers trying to restrict abortion and the result is that they don't like what they see. they don't like the lawmakers dismissive and demeaning attitudes about women and that builds more support for abortion rights. so i think that's the question is how are we going to close the gap between what the voters want and what the lawmakers are doing. >> john: let me ask you a follow-up, question, if i may terry and i'll open up to you irin as well. if we know over 70% of americans support all or some rights, i try to avoid using the words pro-choice and pro-life when i can, but if we have this many americans supporting women's reproductive freedoms, why are

we still fighting about this? is it the fact that people who do support these rights aren't voting? and the people who are opposed to women's reproductive freedoms are more organized and control their politicians better? >> no. it is actually not because the voters are having that much say about it at all. it's the politicians that come in and get power that are making this happen. very often they get power. they get elected without even talking about their agenda regarding women's reproductive healthcare. so you have the koch brothers who are extremely right wing, especially in their thinking about women. they go in and vastly fund the tea party sweep of the key states in the 2010 election and tea partiers sweeping into congress in the 2010 elections. they weren't in the 2010 elections, they weren't even talking about women's access to o reproductive health services and yet once they got in, they absolutely created a tsunami of attacks on our rights. so it's not about the voters. it's really about the people who

have taken control of power. getting that control back in the hands of the voters is frankly the job of organizations like mine. and we're pretty good at our job. that's what we'll be doing. >> john: even your opponents would agree you're good at your job, terry. irin, does it concern you at all in the latest pew poll, only 44% of people under age 30 know that roe v. wade even deals with abortion? >> you know, i think if that poll had been conducted when roe came out probably there would have been a similar number. >> john: really? >> a lot of women who were alive at the time said. roe became famous afterwards. and i think unfortunately civic education in this country is not where it should be. what i do think we've seen over the past year and terry mentioned education is young women becoming far more mobilized through social media and becoming radicalized on the republican attacks on women's health, not enough people know what it is but i think between the attacks on bit control the

attacks on women who were victims of sexual violence, people are starting to add it up and see these are all attacks on women's autonomy. >> john: national organization for women president, terry o'neill and salon staff writer irin carmonday. great to you have both on the program. i hope you'll come back because even though the supreme court was decisive, america is not and this fight will continue. thank you both. >> thank you. >> thank you john. >> john: the incredibly shrinking filibuster reform. plus republicans still have

join only a majority is needed to change senate rules instead of the usual 2/3. this would seem to be the perfect time for majority leader harry reid to fix the filibuster so republicans can no longer abuse it. unless reid has some magic wand that can turn one day into two or three or more. see, thanks to some legislative

maneuvering, reid is extending the official first day by takinging a recess instead of adjourning. this means reid will be able to push for filibuster reform backed up by a simple majority for several more days. but what will the reform look like is another question. instead of pushing to eliminate the filibuster or at the minimum reinstating the talk filibuster which everyone wants reid is reportedly only looking to change the language so that 41 votes are required to maintain a filibuster instead of 60 votes to break it. more on how his fight went later in the program. the fill buster is not the only legislative rule the republicans have been abusing. in virginia, they used the opportunity of president obama's inauguration to pass discriminatory redistricting. it is made up of 20 democrat and 20 republicans. when democratic state senator henry marsh a lifelong civil rights advocate left town to attend president obama's inauguration yesterday, the g.o.p. took advantage using their one-day majority of 20-19 to pass new redistricting lines

that would create more republican-dominated districts. but in an apparent peace offering, virginia republicans did honor martin luther king as they adjourned. i'm kidding. they actually honored confederate general stonewall jackson on dr. king's holiday. tasteful. joining me now from d.c. is political reporter joe williams. and here with me in new york is the only and only sam seder host of the majority report. thank you for your time tonight to discuss all of this malfeasance. joe, let me start with you because my head hurts over this. help me out here. 41 votes to maintain a filibuster instead of 60 to break it. is that the kind of reform harry reid has been promising month after month? >> basically it is change we can believe in if you're a senator because what they want is a rule that can benefit them when they're in the minority. and that is kind of a half measure that nobody really likes. because everybody's afraid -- the democrats are afraid at this

point that one day we're going to be where the republicans are even though they've already been where the republicans were a couple of cycles ago and they never even tried to use these kind of shenanigans to the degree the republicans have. >> john: they did use the filibuster. the republicans did use it under president bush. >> there is a difference between using the filibuster to halt an agenda that you may have a problem with and trying to get the republicans to compromise and a spike in the filibuster where you're requiring not only a majority but a soviet union majority to -- but a supermajority to get anything passed. that's not how things were supposed to work. it is incumbent upon democrats to try to fix that. >> john: sam when we think about the filibuster, we think jimmy stewart "mr. smith goes to washington." strom thurmon filibustering because he wanted it to be harder for black folks to vote. why just reframe the language of what a filibuster is instead of pushing to reinstitute a talk filibuster we're all used to?

why not let the tax-paying voters see what they're paying for and have congressmen prevent a vote from reading from a phone book for ten hours? >> i don't know. when the first proposals came up with just the talking filibuster essentially and basically saying you can't filibuster a motion to start talking about something people were speaking about those reforms as being halfway measures. so what we're talking about now or at least what we were talking about earlier this morning or yesterday was essentially reforms that were quarter way measures. i understand the theory behind the 41 votes. you want to make it more like there is an active, there is a proactive move to stop legislation. >> john: they can still do what they want. >> exactly. the theory being they're somehow going to be intimidated going to be more explicit. that's the talking filibuster then. so i mean -- i think it remains to be seen. we still don't know. i think the talking filibuster

is still on the table. the 51 votes to change the rules still on the table. the senate resets their rules at every new turn like you said. at the top of the segment. so we'll see. there's definitely pressure in the senate to do this. doesn't seem to be a real reason not to. >> john: joe help me out. they could have done it today with 51 votes. why wave the magic wand to say we'll look at sandy funding for the hurricane victims then take this up in a couple of days. why not do it today? you're riding the wave of the inaugural address yesterday. are these guys even serious about reform or do they just always want to be able to play good cop against republicans in a pantomime that never ends? >> two things you have to recall about this particular incident. the first is that the senate is a clubby atmosphere. it is like -- somebody described it as one of the most exclusive clubs in america. only 100 members. it doesn't change very often. they want to be able to get along with each other and look

as though they've got some kind of comedy. they've got some kind of gentlemen's arrangement that can move things forward. the problem with that theory is the republicans haven't been playing under those rules for years. we've got a supermajority that's required to get anything done and a minority that can actively block it. the second thing is a lot of the leadership is coming from the top, down. not from the bottom, up. you have the udall merkley bill that they want people to be able to force the talking filibuster and have an active push back against any kind of majority rule. you're not seeing that because people want to play nice. they want to be seen as playing nice but the change and the culture is set by the top. i personally think that president obama's address yesterday, where he came out with kind of a two-firsted address, talking about liberal values, that may have some impact. we have harry reid keeping the talking filibuster in his pocket. lest he can get a deal with mcconnell. we'll see what sam said. the leadership comes from the top. president obama's address in my

heart of hearts, i hope will help move the debate forward in favor of the democrats. >> john: you and a lot of people i know. let me turn to virginia now. i'll start with you on this, sam. this was just shocking in its crassness. my family's -- my mom's family is from virginia. i grew up knowing dr. king in virginia is jackson lee king day. we honor prosecutor -- martin luther king. are you surprised by the crassness of virginia republicans that they would use dr. king's day a national holiday as an excuse to make it harder for people to vote? >> you know, it's hard to -- virginia has really set a rather high bar to be sort of shocked by their crassness. this is the -- this is the legislature that voted for the transvaginal probe. so i mean, look, this has been the game plan of the republicans since 2010. they've done it on a state by state basis where they are

redistricted their districts in a soft unprecedented partisan way. where they're going to make smaller or i should say more concentrated big democratic districts and then basically make it so that they have more districts that are sort of a plus republican on the partisan index. now they're taking it to the next level of they're going to use this in their plans to swing the electoral votes as well. so i'm not terribly surprised they would do this hook or crook. we saw what happened in wisconsin. this is their modus operandi. >> john: joe are you surprised republicans would resort to tricks like this to pass a redistricting bill even when their own governor said it was wrong? >> i gotta sing harmony with sam. i lived in virginia when henry marsh was mayor. i remember he was a veteran of the civil rights fight. double crassness to do it on the fact he's out of town attending

the inraugation of the first black president. lee jackson king day, i was there. doesn't surprise me at all. what happens is you don't have a state where the consequences have to be paid for these kind of actions. you don't have a significant voting block. virginia has flipped from blue to red on the local level. not a whole lot of pushback from the democrats on the voter side until they get punished for these kind of actions it will continue. >> john: joe williams and host of ring of fire and the majority report sam seder. love talking to both of you. thank you forget for coming on. >> yet another mass shooting this time in the gun friendly state of texas. my congratulations to wayne

>> john: there was another shooting at another school today. this time in texas. at lone star college. the shooter wounded three people one critically, despite being surrounded by good guys with guns. thankfully, no one was killed. this shooting like all of the others that have become far too

common in our country is horrifying but this one happened in texas which is wayne lapierrre and the nra's idea of a safe haven. safe because according to wayne's world texas is the place where any gun-toting bad guy is guaranteed to be outdrawn by the good gun-toting guys. who, thank god are able to get their firearms at gun shows or the back of a truck parked by an hourly rate la quinta inn without background checks. you know, who would ever pull a gun in a public space in texas when dozens of everyday wyatt earps are ready to clock their glocks. this is a plausible scenario because it's never happened. i know you can't cock a glock. congratulations, wayne lapierrre. you have been proven wrong again! but luckily for you, the sound of your critics is drowned but oi the senseless gufnfire that you and your fakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakakak

>> john: this, my friends is the sound of history being made. >> obama: we the people, declare today that the most evident of truths, that all of us are created equal is the star that guides us still just as it guided our forbearers through seneca falls and selma and stonewall. our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. [ applause ] >> john: and with that, president barack obama became the first president to mention the word "gay" and the issue of gay equality in an inaugural speech. so how will that translate into action during this, his second term? joining me to discuss is the

founder and executive director of truth wins out, wayne besen who i read almost every day and tico almeida who served on the nondiscrimination act for the house of representatives sand founder and president of freedom to work. i'm honored both of you gentlemen would join me to talk about this historic event. so let me start with you tico. what did you make of president obama's speech yesterday? were you as surprised as everybody else? >> i wasn't surprised the president mentioned gay rights because he's made it a strong part of his administration's record of accomplishment during the first four years. i wasn't surprised it got such a large applause and enthusiastic response from the audience. i was there on the lawn of the capitol near the steps. it really was one of the lines in the entire speech that got the most enthusiastic response. but what pleasantly surprised me was the reference to stonewall. the president iowa our story as gay americans and transgender americans into the story of america. that line about the same guiding star of equality that led those

at seneca falls and selma being the same principle and the same star for those whod doesn't -- who stood up to discrimination at stone will of wall, it filled my heart with pride. it shows that this president wants to make equality part of his legacy. he's accomplished so much and there's a bunch more we're going to do in the next four years. >> john: i agree. i was gob smacked he knows about stonewall. i say that as someone who lives across the street from the actual place. wayne, is this the guy we voted for in 2008? did we see the fully evolved barack obama? really speaking from his heart? >> i believe it was. that speech was as moving as it was magnificent. it was as bold as it was beautiful. this was historying in the making. this came from a president who was not just rewarding another special interest. this is not somebody who was just throwing bones because of an issue. this was someone who believes that their legacy was partially

dependent on achieving gay and lesbian rights and that's something he wanted -- something to be very proud of and something in the presidential library. i was stunned and to quote chris matthews a tingle up my leg. i really had the chills. and it had nothing to do with the freezing temperatures up here in burlington, vermont. if you look back at obama's history when he first ran for state senate, he was originally for marriage equality. i believe for political reasons he backed away from it. and of course, now he's come full circle again. i think we'll see a lot more from this president and i was honored and proud to be a part history, watching that speech yesterday. >> john: absolutely. i couldn't agree more with you. we discussed last night with governor granholm that if the president had come out full throated for marriage equality back in 2008, the year that prop 8 passed in california, there is the dreadful possibility we might have seen the reinauguration of president mccain and vice president palin. it was a political choice. tico, let me put this to you...

what are you hoping to see from the president in his second term and additionally in his state of the union? is he going to be an advocate in chief or do you think he's going to do more? >> there are a lot of upcoming opportunities for the obama administration to stand strongly on the side of fairness and equality. one of them is that the supreme court is going to take up marriage equality in march. his department of justice will have the opportunity to put in briefs and we know that the obama administration is opposing the so-called defense of marriage act. i think the real question that came up at the white house press briefing is whether they will oppose the discriminatory prop 8 from california. the question is whether states can discriminate and what the president thinks about that. i hope that he will take the logical next step from his beautiful remarks yesterday and weigh in on both issues. >> john: wayne let me put it to you. we saw it in the first term. the president took away don't ask, don't tell for our troops serving and even more powerfully, came out in favor of

marriage equality even if that wasn't any policymaking on his part. what would you like to see him do in the second term? >> we've come so far so fast and what i would like to see the president do is consider openly gay person for cabinet or high-level positions within the administration. i think we -- although don't ask, don't tell has been scrapped, there is still a problem in the military with discrimination exists against gay and lesbian spouses. i also would like to see perhaps an executive order is mentioned with contractors and there is still, in most states today, you can fire somebody because of their sexual orientation. that must change. we also can never forget our transgender brothers and sisters who still have a lot of fighting to do in front of them. >> john: tico, about 20 seconds left. what do you think will be the status on the employee nondiscrimination act in the second term? >> i hope the president will push for it. he has not yet publicly used

that opportunity of a state of a union to call for congress to act. knowing that the republican obstructionists aren't going to act, he should sign the executive order that ensures that u.s. taxpayer money is never wasted by discriminating against gay or transgender americans. there are hundreds of millions that go to contracting. we have a right as tax payers to maic sure that's being spent well and without discrimination, that's something he can do with the stroke of his pen and i'm optimistic he will do it soon. wayne besen, tico almeida, thank you both for your time and insight and for your cause in general. barack obama is president again and the right wing hasn't freaked out like this since they lost the civil war. they did lose that, you know. my panel of nonexperts talks about that ahead. first, i gotta know what is coming up tonight on "say anything" with joy behar? fill me in, joy. >> joy: thanks, john. on tonight's "say anything," i celebrate the first day of the rest of obama's presidency with

a look at inaugural slums. plus i sit down with the sex surrogate who's had more sex partners than wilt chamberlain. >> i have seen 900 different people. i have not had intercourse with 900 people. probably only about 800. >> i talk with "star trek" icon george takei. but first more

>> john: you know, one of the loudest critics of president obama over the past year or so has been america's sweetheart, newt gingrich. yet even newt had to admit yesterday that the president's inauguration speech was, for the most part, "classically american." a speech about giving everyone the opportunity to succeed and to enjoy the same equality under the law? how could anyone, anyone find a problem with an inspiring speech about things like fairness and equal rights? >> simply impossible to do what

the president wants to do. ensure prosperity and fairness for every american. can't be done. no matter how much money you spend. >> john: god bless that man. okay. i'm happy to concede the point that prosperity for every american is not a task that can ever be achieved which is probably why the president never said or suggested it, bill. but fairness, we've given up on fairness? i guess fox news will have to change its slogan. fox news, we're balanced, right kucinich? joining me now my panel of nonexperts joe derosa, comedian and co-author of "cheat". contributor to forbes.com, ruck ungar and writer, comedian, frank conniff. good evening gentlemen. the right, our friends on the right are freaking out. o'reilly says that fairness and equality are not possible. have our good friends on the right given up on pretending they want those things?

joe? >> i don't -- i was a little confused by owe rile let's stance on this because he said that obama's attempt to distribute these things to the public would bankrupt us which makes me laugh. it seems hypocritical because not too many years ago, there was an equally vague and impossible thing that the right was pursuing which was the war on terror. >> john: while cutting taxes back home. >> exactly. it just seemed like finger pointing for finger pointing sake to me. >> john: what do you think rick? after bush's diamond dash he pulled on this country are you surprised to hear bill talking like that? >> i think i figured it out. the republicans have come to believe that every time obama opens his mouth he is sending a coded message for them to figure out what he's negotiating about. they can't deal with the fact that yesterday's speech wasn't about them. it was actually about something else. they don't seem to know the difference between an inaugural address and the state of the union. it wasn't about them. and they can't deal with it.

>> john: i think it's entertainment and fox news has gotten very wealthy by telling people exactly what they want to hear. so frankly, for example there is this breitbart.com article yesterday that i just love that came out right away. the headline was about how obama declares war on liberty as we know it. that's from people who don't think gay, tax-paying americans should be allowed to marry who they want. how exactly is the president limiting what breitbart readers describe as liberty? >> they want their liberty to demagogue the president as much as they want and they want their liberty to point out as often as they can that we have a black president and we should be upset by that. remember they released a video earlier this year that was supposed to be devastating indictment of obama. it showed him being a little more black than he normally so. hanging out with black people. and they thought that was -- they thought that was going to bring him down. i think it's just -- indicates

how out-of-touch they are. it is really obama what the fox people can't understand is obama really is talking to most of america. >> you should go work at fox. >> john: listen, i worked at fox news plenty. it is happiest place on earth when you walk in there. >> it is a horrible place. are they hiring? [ laughter ] >> john: here's my thing about fox. the week barack obama was sworn in 2009, both bill elo'reilly and sean hannity were given four year contracts. i was praying for mitt romney to get elected. i'm going to buy a boat if he gets elected. fox, it sounds better as the hate obama network than the defend romney network. so aren't they just providing the entertainment and denial their fans demand? >> absolutely. it makes me laugh too to reference back to george w. when george w. was in office, you're either with us or you're against us. now the right is going how dare obama say we sacrifice our personal needs for the group effort, for the good of the team

>> they make such a big deal about fiscal responsibility and bill clinton balanced the budget. as you'll remember, fox news in the late '90s was nothing but them praising bill clinton. never said a bad word. >> john: bill clinton is the real fiscal conservative. moving on to something we can all agree on regardless of their political persuasions, tsa is getting rid of the body scanners ending the virtual strip searches is. this really a software issue or did they realize they hadn't studied the long-term health effects of having radiation touch all of your organs at once? >> i'm upset about it because those full body scans are the most action i get. >> the most attention my body gets. >> i'm going to be lonelier than ever now. >> people were outraged. you start reading the articles, they should be outraged. it is radiation. because they're revealing our body parts. i will take my pants off at the

ticket counter just promise i won't get cancer. i don't care about that. >> they're being cagey. they're not saying if it's because they discovered they're killing us or if because the way they put it originally, they couldn't find a way to put it that wasn't showing too much of us. because i really cared that there's somebody looking at my scan. >> john: that my mom has naked pictures being looked at by a government agency. >> deeply distressing. what do i care? >> i don't mean to sound like a pollyanna. i believe they will find other ways to make traveling a thoroughly miserable experience. >> john: when i want to have radiation in my body, i'll eat the food on the plane. phil mickelson regrets the comments he made because he would have to retire because of how much he's being taxed. are there people who won't work as hard because they're being taxed more? will you try to be less successful in order to be taxed less? joe? >> i just -- i need money.

do you have any? but here's my thing. isn't the fact that you're being asked to pay slightly hear taxes because you're rich isn't it a sign you won? >> what is a guy making $100 million tax him 60%? the same thing your tax worries are. >> john: not quite 60%. >> upwards of that figure. >> john: rick? >> i'm shocked we ever had arnold palmer. he was playing golf at a time when taxes were 90%. i don't know why he even bothered. >> he makes $100 million. you expect him to try to get by on $40 million? that seems unreasonable. >> we're planning to have a telethon for phil. >> my point is people criticize him for the money he's making. what is he complaining about? they think he's making $100 million a year. you live a $100 million a year.

>> i criticize him for his drives. >> john: the last word on this, the subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities that is in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under protection of the state. raging socialist adam smith and the wealth of nations 1770. >> hippy! >> john: my panel is stay with me after the break. when we talk about yes our hopes and dreams for the congressional future. and other funny stuff. thththththththththththththththththththththththththththth

but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit even the smallest things became difficult. i finally understood what serious joint pain is like. i talked to my rheumatologist and he prescribed enbrel. enbrel can help relieve pain, stiffness, and stop joint damage. because enbrel, etanercept suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections tuberculosis lymphoma, other cancers,

and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores have had hepatitis b have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. [ phil ] get back to the things that matter most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists. >> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." i need to throw a quick question to my panel of distinguished nonexperts. what is the one thing you would like to see from congress this term? joe, i'll start with you. >> i above anything else, that this country is in dire need of right now, i want to see congress make sure these poor golfers stop being paid. >> john: rick ungar?

>> doma. i would like to see doma go away. >> i hope they'll learn to be true to the people who gerrymandered them into office. >> john: very inspiring. here's what i want if i may gentlemen. i would like to see them fix the filibuster. i was all set to slam harry reid. i was going to call him out for always compromising on his compromise compromises before bravely folding. i was all set to mock him for caving so hard there were miners trapped inside him but now i gotta wait. as you guys know, the filibuster allows debate to be extended. in theory, a filibuster requires a legislator to take the floor and talk. they can lecture read the phone book, anything until the clock runs out so you never get to vote and a bill dies. you know, democracy. under president bill clinton the g.o.p. broke all filibuster records using up more to block his agenda than had been used in several previous decades combined and they have popped that under barack obama proving our friends in the g.o.p. do go for some self-exrooivelt but the

g.o.p. is largely stopped filibustering. they just threaten to and the democrats cower in fear rather than calling the republican's bluff and forcing mitch mcconle to stand on the senate floor reading "50 shades of grey." that might be better read by the senate majority whip. that's all harry reid's critics really want. make the republicans do the talking filibuster instead of a sulking filibuster. let the voters and the taxpayers see the g.o.p. wasting valuable senate time to prevent the people's business from being voted on while we pay for it. see, har i reid doesn't like to be pressured for filibuster reform. makes him angry. so angry he could just tear the tassels off his loafers. today was the last day harry reid could actually do something about it and this morning we began hearing reports that senator reid was going to back down. so i got all set to slam him for it right here and then he filibustered my tantrum. senator reid said he was going to delay the vote by having a senate recess. not an adjournment.

this means that today as the first legislative day of the new session is a day that's officially going to go on for days and days and days longer like that time i watched the hobbit. harry reid, i know you're watching. i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. i'm so willing to